[uf-discuss] Plazes & Microformats

[David Janes -- BlogMatrix]

Ryan King wrote:
> But the relationship isn't 'vcard'. 'vcard' describes the format (or 
> part of the format) of the referenced resource, not the relationship 
> between the two.

OK, fair enough: vcard is just a word, and in particular 
[top-level-uf-id] is just a word. But because we're devising these names 
to be unique under almost all circumstances, I don't think it's confusing.

Would your objection disappear it to be 'is-canonical-vcard'?

> 
>> We've already made the leap that "current document" means the uFed 
>> object in question on the source side, cf. rel-tag.
> 
> Right, we've stretched @rel to apply to parts of documents, rather than 
> whole documents. However, this isn't the problem I have with using 
> 'vcard' as a rel value. The problem is that the typical @rel 
> interpetation doesn't make sense. To illustrate:
> 
> In document A I have:
> 
> <a rel="tag" href="B">blah</a>
> 
> this can be inpreted as "B is a tag for A".
> 
> In this case:
> 
> <a rel="vcard" href="B">blah</a>
> 
> "B is a vcard for A" doesn't make sense. B *is* a vcard, even if A 
> doesn't exist.

OK, there's something that didn't translate here: rel=vcard (and rel=uF) 
in general can only be used within/at a class=vcard.

I.e. either you have A=

<span class="vcard">
  <a rel="vcard" href="B">blah</a>
</span>

... that is, your statement: "B is a vcard for A"

OR

<a class="vcard" rel="vcard" href="B"><span class="fn">blah</a></a>

... that is, "B is vcard for blah"

Regards, etc...
David